Old vs. New Testament

[Andro]

And even if we zoom out from the sexuality-centered topics, those religions are still extremely intolerant. Basically, "everyone is a sinner". And when some pope says "who am I to judge", we might as well listen to what he doesn't say. It's just a more diplomatic way to indirectly imply that something is still a "sin", but it's not our place to judge, because god will do all the judging... The very concept of sin, combined to the necessity to "repent", is a mechanism that perpetually feeds sentiments of guilt - and religions THRIVE on this.

[Florius Frammel]

Let's look at the text you linked to:





OK, now I am deeply comforted... It's OK to have a same-gender relationship BUT... you can't fuck. Awesome. Where do I sign up? LOL

It actually says it's about a certain act of sexuality that is humiliating for men. As it is not further specified which act that should be I'd say it is your own definition what act you consider humiliating. And if you are not sure if that's really the biblic god's wish then "Be still, and know that I am God (Psalm 46:10)". Or you are, or he his, or anyone who is reading that book from a gnostic perspective.

Florius, I assume you mean well.

I really do.

But like you said, you're not in my shoes, and the best we can do when properly discussing religions (or anything else for that matter) is via the impact they have on our personal lives. Purely academic debates, disconnected from every-day life, are useless IMO. So my view of those religions remains as it is: Fuck them all. So yes, it IS personal And yes, I WILL "judge" the letter (also) by the envelope. The envelope is after all an integral part of the delivery mechanism, and if the delivery mechanism is toxic, the letter is anywhere from secondary to irrelevant. Have you seen the movie "The Name Of The Rose"? If the paper is poisoned, reading the book is lethal, regardless of the content. And with religions, there is no lack of toxic content in toxic envelopes... Best of both worlds!

Sorry for giving the impression being to academic. I am also describing personal experiences. And I oftentimes experienced that people who cry out for equality and tolerance (which is not the same like acceptance, BTW) the loudest, often can't provide the very same things to others and their opinions too.

Your analogy with that book in "name of the rose" is interesting and I see it differently. The poison is actually and literally on the pages. Similar things count for our favourite alchemy books. If taken literally and you use "vulgar" mercury like the followers of the cinnabar path, they are toxic too.

Still, I am not in your shoes and I am only trying to describe my view -which is somehow rather from an outside perspective and more alchemically expressed like this:



Left guy: "I hate gay people!"
Right guy: "I hate people who hate gay people!"



No offence!

[Andro]

It actually says it's about a certain act of sexuality that is humiliating for men.

That's a really tough one to guess... Hmm... I really have to deeply ponder on what is referred to here

The poison is actually and literally on the pages.

Just like the poison on the tongues of the "envelopes". Not chemical poison, but poison nevertheless.

Left guy: "I hate gay people!"
Right guy: "I hate people who hate gay people!"

I don't hate anyone. Never have in my whole life so far. Really. But the night is still young

All I'm saying is that those religions are toxic and I'm like the canary in the coal mine. Personally, I'm not "crying for tolerance" or for "acceptance". People are what they are. If anything, being "different" should teach one to be more accepting of diversity. I can stand my own ground in the face of adversity. I don't do politics, events, marches, parades, etc... But I WILL voice my views when/if the topic comes up (even tangentially) and also, like the recent words of Madonna, I am "Desperately Seeking No One's Approval".

I really do.

I believe you.

No offence!

Noah Fence indeed


-------------------------------------------------

[Florius Frammel]

I don't hate anyone. Never had in my whole life so far. But the night is still young

So you meant these quotes:

Fuck them ALL.

Yes, please know those religions. BIBLICALLY

in a not-hating way? Like followers of those religions should literally fuck themselves with love?

[Awani]

I think all this removes the light from the important parts of all sacred text. The message has got nothing to do with the messenger. Wisdom is the same no matter who says it. In fact one could learn more, learning from those that disagree than agree. Personally I am interested in the parts where the Mystery shines through.

Imagine a human telling a monkey about the theory of relativity, and then you read that monkey’s account of this a few thousand years later.

The Bible is a prophetic (not only divination but an experience of a transformative and divine nature) work of art... like a dream diary... many of my dreams have not been PC... doesn’t make my dreams be law nor imply that I agree with them. I’ve raped and killed people in my dreams... sometimes I was not even me when this happened. I have been an animal, a man, a woman... anything...

[Andro]

So you meant these quotes in a not-hating way? Like followers of those religions should literally fuck themselves with love?

I never mentioned the followers in this context. "Fuck them" refers to those religions. And yes, in a non-hating way

[Andro]

I think all this removes the light from the important parts of all sacred text.

Then the writers shouldn't have placed all the darkness in there in the first place. Also, I don't hold any text as "sacred". There is some cool stuff in the bible, sure. But in the end, it's just another book - one that happened to gave a gigantic PR machine behind it.

Wisdom is the same no matter who says it.

Wisdom can't be written/spoken. And the messenger always alters/colors the message. Maybe wisdom can be triggered/inspired, but ultimately it has to emerge internally. And if we're talking inspiration, religious texts are ranking quite low with me (but still, not zero).


PS: I've had enough computer time for now

[Florius Frammel]

I never mentioned the followers in this context. "Fuck them" refers to those religions. And yes, in a non-hating way

Then sorry for being such a jobsworth, but now you finally seem to actually differentiate the message and the messenger

[Awani]

Then the writers shouldn't have placed all the darkness in there in the first place. Also, I don't hold any text as "sacred". There is some cool stuff in the bible, sure. But in the end, it's just another book - one that happened to gave a gigantic PR machine behind it.

Wisdom can't be written/spoken. And the messenger always alters/colors the message. Maybe wisdom can be triggered/inspired, but ultimately it has to emerge internally. And if we're talking inspiration, religious texts are ranking quite low with me...

You cannot see the light unless it is dark. True that wisdom cannot be read, but you can ”see” it by reading.

Also to study religious texts is fun... for me... I enjoy it... I’ve read sacred texts since I was a child... always fascinated me.

[Andro]

Then sorry for being such a jobsworth, but now you finally seem to actually differentiate the message and the messenger

You're right. I'm guilty of discrimination. They should be included as well

So, if someone tells you that you are somehow less worth/worthy or generally judges you based on some "ism" on some book/dogma/belief system or whatever -> fuck them, too - but don't hate them.
There IS a difference. When I say "fuck them", it's basically a stronger and more colorful way to say "ignore them" or "release/let go/remove from your life", etc...